EMERGENCY 

TRANSPORTATION 

RELIEF 

Agencies Could 

Improve Collaboration 

Begun during 

Hurricane Sandy 

Response

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Transportation, Housing and Urban 

Development, and Related Agencies,

Committee on Appropriations,

House of Representatives

May 2014

GAO-14-512

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-512, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, 

Housing, and Urban Development and 

Related Agencies, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of Representatives

May 2014

EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION RELIEF

Agencies Could Improve Collaboration Begun during 

Hurricane Sandy Response

Why GAO Did This Study

In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy 

devastated portions of the Mid-Atlantic 

coast causing severe damage to transit 

facilities and infrastructure and 

disrupting mobility in the New York 

metropolitan region. In January 2013, 

the President signed the DRAA, which 

provided approximately $50.5 billion in 

federal aid for expenses related to 

Hurricane Sandy. GAO was asked to 

examine DRAA emergency relief 

assistance for transportation. 

This report addresses (1) the progress 

DOT has made allocating, obligating, 

and disbursing DRAA surface 

transportation funds, (2) how FTA’s 

new Public Transportation Emergency 

Relief program compares to FEMA’s 

and FHWA’s emergency relief 

programs, and (3) the extent to which 

FTA and FEMA have implemented 

their memorandum of agreement to 

coordinate their roles and 

responsibilities when providing 

assistance to transit agencies. GAO 

analyzed relevant laws, regulations, 

and agency documentation, and 

interviewed DOT, FEMA, and New 

Jersey and New York area transit 

officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOT and the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) direct FTA and FEMA to 

establish specific guidelines to monitor, 

evaluate, and report the results of 

collaborative efforts—including their

communications program and protocol 

as contemplated in their memorandum 

of agreement. DHS agreed with our 

recommendation, and DOT took no 

position. DHS and DOT also provided 

technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

The Department of Transportation (DOT) is in the process of allocating, 

obligating, and disbursing the $13 billion appropriated by the Disaster Relief 

Appropriations Act, 2013 (DRAA) for surface transportation relief. Most of the 

DRAA surface transportation funds—over $10 billion—were appropriated to the 

Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) new Public Transportation Emergency 

Relief Program. An FTA damage assessment in January 2013 estimated the 

costs of repairing facilities damaged by Hurricane Sandy in New York and New 

Jersey to be about $5.7 billion. To date, FTA has obligated about $1.5 billion for 

15 grants and disbursed about $499 million to reimburse transit agencies for 

emergency response, recovery, and repair costs. These disbursements are 

consistent with Congressional Budget Office estimates, and transit projects can 

take years to complete. Furthermore, FTA plans to use nearly half of its DRAA 

appropriation for resiliency projects (or projects to protect facilities from future 

damage), most of which will be carried out through a competitive grant process. 

FTA was evaluating applications when GAO completed its review.

FTA’s new Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program has more flexibility 

and fewer restrictions in funding projects compared to the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s (FEMA) Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation 

programs and the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Emergency Relief 

Program. For example, FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation program places limits on the 

amount of emergency relief funds that can be used for resiliency projects, while 

FTA’s program does not. FTA’s program also has more flexibility in how funds 

can be used for repairs, allowing transit agencies to improve facilities beyond 

pre-disaster conditions. The use of emergency relief funds for projects that go 

beyond recovery efforts is not new—activities funded by FHWA’s Emergency 

Relief Program have also expanded beyond repair and reconstruction. The 

expanding scope of emergency relief assistance illustrates the fiscal exposure 

the federal government faces and the challenges of establishing long-term 

sustainable funding for disaster relief and recovery.

Although FTA and FEMA have a memorandum of agreement for assisting transit 

providers during emergencies, they are limited in their ability to delineate specific 

roles and responsibilities for future disasters. This limit is because while FEMA 

receives funding on an ongoing basis, FTA, to date, has only received a 

supplemental appropriation for Hurricane Sandy and does not know what 

resources it will have for future disasters. Because FTA and FEMA have the 

authority to fund many of the same activities by law, transit agencies may 

experience confusion when seeking assistance under some circumstances. FTA 

and FEMA have not determined how collaborative efforts, including their 

communications program and protocol contemplated in the memorandum of 

agreement, will be monitored, evaluated, and reported, but instead rely on 

informal communication. As GAO has previously concluded, creating a means to 

evaluate the results of collaborative efforts can enhance and sustain them, and 

informal communications between federal agencies do not ensure that 

collaboration is effective. Establishing more formal monitoring and evaluation of 

combined efforts could help FTA and FEMA ensure effective collaboration.

View GAO-14-512. For more information, 

contact Dave Wise at (202) 512-2834 or 

wised@gao.gov
Page i GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

Letter 1

Background 4

FTA Has Allocated over Half of DOT’s DRAA Funds While Setting 

Up the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program 10

FTA’s Relief Program Is More Flexible Than FEMA’s and FHWA’s 

but Has Not Received Ongoing Funding 16

FTA and FEMA Have Limited Ability to Assign Responsibilities in 

Their Memorandum of Agreement but Could Do More to Ensure 

Effective Collaboration 28

Conclusions 32

Recommendation for Executive Action 33

Agency Comments 33

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 35

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 39

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 41

Tables

Table 1: Estimated Damage to New York and New Jersey Transit 

Agencies, As Assessed by FTA, FEMA, and Transit 

Agencies (January 31, 2013) 9

Table 2: DOT DRAA Funding Status ($ millions) as of April 30, 

2014 13

Table 3: Federal and Non-Federal Cost-Sharing Arrangements for 

FTA’s, FEMA’s, and FHWA’s Emergency Relief Programs 20

Table 4: Agency Guidance Reviewed 37

Figures

Figure 1: $50.5 Million in DRAA Funding by Agency (As Enacted 

on January 29, 2013) 5

Figure 2: Examples of Damage from Hurricane Sandy 6

Figure 3: DRAA Appropriations for Surface Transportation (As 

Enacted on January 29, 2013) 10

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

Figure 4: Depiction of the Amtrak Gateway Tunnel Project 

between New York and New Jersey 12

Abbreviations

CBO Congressional Budget Office

CRS Congressional Research Service

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOT Department of Transportation

DRAA Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 

DRF Disaster Relief Fund 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FTA Federal Transit Administration

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

NORTA New Orleans Regional Transit Authority 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 28, 2014

The Honorable Tom Latham

Chairman

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and

Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Public transportation agencies are vulnerable to natural and man-made 

disasters that can disrupt transit operations and destroy vehicles and 

facilities. This presents a range of challenges, as transportation 

infrastructure is a key resource before, during, and after a major disaster 

or emergency. Before a disaster, public transportation infrastructure and 

resources can be used to assist with evacuating residents. During a 

disaster, the loss of transit can worsen the disaster’s impact by impeding 

a community’s access to emergency relief services and medical care. 

After a disaster, public transportation can be used to return people to their 

homes by restarting normal operations and allowing people to return to 

their jobs and daily activities.

In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy hit the Mid-Atlantic coast during high 

tide, bringing with it a storm surge and flooding. The President issued 

disaster declarations under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act)1

 1

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended April 

2013, establishes the authority under which states request a presidential disaster 

declaration. The act also established the programs and process through which the federal 

government provides disaster assistance to state and local governments, tribes, and 

certain nonprofit organizations and individuals. 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5207.

for the following areas: 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, Virginia, and West Virginia. Parts of New York and New Jersey 

were the hardest hit, and mobility in the greater New York City 

metropolitan area was temporarily crippled, including its transit systems, 

which normally carry more customers than all other systems in the United 

States combined. In January 2013, the President signed the Disaster 
Page 2 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (DRAA), which provided approximately 

$50.5 billion in supplemental appropriations to 61 programs at 19 federal 

agencies for expenses related to Hurricane Sandy.2 DRAA provided over 

$13 billion to the Department of Transportation (DOT), most of it to the 

Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) new Public Transportation 

Emergency Relief Program, which had gone into effect 28 days before 

Hurricane Sandy struck the United States. However, not all of the funds 

appropriated to FTA under DRAA were available until DOT signed a 

memorandum of agreement on March 4, 2013, with the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate the roles and responsibilities of 

the two departments in providing assistance for public transportation.3

Given the amount of funds distributed and the number of agencies 

involved, you requested that we study emergency relief for transportation 

facilities and the services being carried out under the DRAA. We 

reviewed DOT’s progress in disbursing DRAA funds to address Hurricane 

Sandy—with a focus on FTA’s new Public Transportation Emergency 

Relief Program, how it compares to other federal agencies that provide 

emergency relief funding to surface transportation, and implications for 

responding to future disasters. Specifically, this report addresses (1) the 

progress DOT has made allocating, obligating, and disbursing DRAA 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), within DHS, is the 

lead agency responsible for preparing the federal response plans and 

programs for future disasters, coordinating the federal response when a 

disaster is declared, and providing grants to assist state and local 

governments during the response and recovery phases of a disaster. 

Within DOT, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also has an 

Emergency Relief Program that provides funds for the repair and 

reconstruction of roads on the federal-aid highway system that have 

suffered serious damage as a result of either a natural disaster or a 

catastrophic failure from any external cause.

 2

Pub. L. No. 113-2 div. A, 127 Stat. 4 (Jan. 29, 2013).

3

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) requires that the 

Secretaries of the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation enter a 

memorandum of agreement to improve coordination between the two departments in 

providing assistance for public transportation and expedite the provision of federal 

assistance relating to a major disaster or emergency declared by the President under the 

Stafford Act. Pub. L. No. 112-141, § 20017(b), 126 Stat. 405, 705 (July 6, 2012). FTA and 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) entered into the memorandum of 

agreement on behalf of DOT and DHS respectively.
Page 3 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

surface transportation funds; (2) how FTA’s new Public Transportation 

Emergency Relief Program compares to FEMA’s and FHWA’s emergency 

relief programs; and (3) the extent to which FTA and FEMA have 

implemented their memorandum of agreement to coordinate their roles 

and responsibilities when providing assistance to transit agencies 

affected by Hurricane Sandy or future disasters.

To address all objectives, we reviewed and analyzed relevant laws and 

regulations; our previous reports; FTA, FWHA, and FEMA guidance; and 

interviewed officials from DOT and FEMA. We interviewed officials from 

seven of the 13 transit agencies that received grants from FTA. We 

selected the transit agencies that received FTA’s four largest funding 

allocations (all located within New York and New Jersey) and selected 

three agencies that received smaller funding allocations but were located 

outside of New York and New Jersey. Our findings from interviews with 

these selected agencies provide insights and illustrate FTA’s emergency 

transit-relief grant process; however, the results of our review should not 

be used to make generalizations about all FTA emergency transit relief 

grants. We also interviewed officials from Amtrak,4

To determine the progress DOT has made with DRAA surface 

transportation funds, we obtained information from the DOT surfacetransportation agencies—FTA, FHWA, and FRA—on the amount of 

DRAA funds that have been allocated, obligated, and disbursed from 

March 2013 to April 2014. We obtained FTA’s damage assessment of 

public transit agencies in New York and New Jersey affected by 

Hurricane Sandy. We reviewed the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) 

2012 analysis of the DRAA. To assess the reliability of the allocation, 

obligation, and disbursement data we received from DOT, we reviewed 

relevant documentation, interviewed knowledgeable officials, and 

reviewed internal controls related to the handling of the data. We found 

the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To determine how 

FTA’s Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program compares to 

FEMA’s and FHWA’s emergency relief programs, we reviewed and 

analyzed relevant statutes and regulations, as well as documents 

pertaining to FTA, FHWA, and FEMA emergency relief programs to 

determine similarities and differences between the programs’ eligibility 

which received funds 

from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) within DOT.

 4

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).
Page 4 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

rules, requirements, and funding.5

We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 to May 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I provides a more 

detailed description of our scope and methodology.

To determine the extent to which FTA 

and FEMA have coordinated their roles and responsibilities when 

providing disaster assistance to transit agencies, we reviewed and 

analyzed their memorandum of agreement and compared the agencies’

efforts to practices that we have found can enhance collaboration among 

federal agencies.

When a disaster overwhelms the ability of state, local, and voluntary 

agencies to adequately provide essential services on their own, the 

federal government generally plays a central role in disaster response, 

providing selected resources where they are needed. The federal 

government has provided significant funds for transit services following 

past catastrophic disasters. For example, about $4.7 billion was provided 

in emergency supplemental appropriations for emergency transit services 

in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks and $232 million in 

response to the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes.

After Hurricane Sandy, Congress enacted and the President signed into 

law the DRAA, which provided supplemental appropriations to federal 

agencies to assist, improve, and streamline Hurricane Sandy recovery 

efforts, including efforts to address damage to public transportation 

 5

During the review the team held coordination meetings with the DOT OIG. We learned 

they are conducting an extensive multi-phase review of how FTA’s Public Transportation 

Emergency Relief program is being set up and FTA’s efforts to ensure that DRAA funds 

are distributed appropriately. Thus, the team made a decision to focus our review on how 

the program is structured compared to previously established emergency relief programs 

in FEMA and FHWA instead of conducting an in-depth evaluation of FTA’s Public 

Transportation Emergency Relief Program at this time.

Background
Page 5 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

systems. Figure 1 shows the funding provided by the DRAA by agency, 

including over $13 billion to DOT.6

Figure 1: $50.5 Million in DRAA Funding by Agency (As Enacted on January 29, 

2013)

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

Most of DOT’s DRAA funding was made available to assist transit 

agencies, especially in New York and New Jersey, which experienced 

substantial damage to their infrastructure and incurred significant costs to 

restore operational service after the storm. All of these transit systems 

experienced the temporary suspension of service and most sustained 

serious, widespread damage, which affected the region’s entire 

transportation network. As alternative modes of travel were sought, the 

use of the region’s roadway network far exceeded capacity. The ripple 

effects were felt by many residents of the region who were not able to 

travel. Figure 2 below illustrates some of the damage to regional 

transportation systems as a result of Hurricane Sandy.

 6

According to CBO, this law increased nondefense discretionary appropriations for fiscal 

year 2013 by more than $50 billion and defense discretionary appropriations by over $100 

million. 
Page 6 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

Figure 2: Examples of Damage from Hurricane Sandy

FEMA is the federal government’s primary agency for disaster response 

and has primary responsibility for administering the provisions of the 

Stafford Act and for carrying out activities for national preparedness. 

Specifically, FEMA (1) funds and coordinates eligible prevention, 

protection, and mitigation activities; (2) provides and coordinates the 

immediate federal response to save lives and property; (3) funds the 

reconstruction of disaster-damaged public infrastructure; and (4) provides 

individual assistance to stricken families. In addition to coordinating 
Page 7 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

disaster response and recovery operations, FEMA’s Public Assistance 

Program provides funding to state and local governments and some 

nonprofit organizations for recovery efforts after a disaster, including

removing debris, implementing emergency protective measures, and 

repairing or replacing damaged public equipment or facilities. FEMA also 

provides grants to states and local governments to implement mitigation 

measures that reduce or permanently eliminate future risk to lives and 

property from natural hazards under its Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. 

This program funds projects in accordance with priorities identified in 

state, tribal, or local hazard mitigation plans and enables mitigation 

measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a 

disaster.

DOT also has two emergency relief programs to assist with damage to 

surface transportation infrastructure and facilities after a disaster, both of 

which received a share of DOT’s DRAA funding for Hurricane Sandy.

• FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program provides funding for emergency 

and permanent repairs or reconstruction of roadways on the federalaid highway system and on federal lands that have suffered serious 

damage as a result of a natural disaster or catastrophic failure from an 

external cause. Emergency repairs are completed during and 

immediately following a disaster to quickly restore essential highway 

traffic service and protect remaining facilities, for example, 

establishing emergency detours and providing temporary bridges or 

ferry service. Permanent repairs are undertaken after emergency 

repairs have been completed to restore damaged facilities to predisaster conditions, for example, restoring pavement surfaces or 

reconstructing damaged bridges. FHWA only provides funding under 

its Emergency Relief Program for highways that are either federal-aid 

highways or on federal lands. FEMA’s Public Assistance Program 

provides funding to repair disaster damage to other roads.

• FTA’s Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program was 

authorized by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

(MAP-21).7

 7 Pub. L. No. 112-141, § 20017(a), 126 Stat 405, 703, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 5324.

MAP-21 provides FTA with the primary responsibility for 

reimbursing emergency response and recovery costs after an 

emergency or major disaster affects a public transportation system. 

The FTA program is a reimbursable grant program and allows FTA to 
Page 8 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

make grants for capital projects to protect, repair, reconstruct, or 

replace equipment and facilities of a public transportation system as 

well as for eligible operating costs. Such costs include reestablishing, 

expanding, or relocating public transportation route service in the 

event of a natural disaster that affects a wide area or a catastrophic 

failure from any external cause.

Most of the $13 billion that DRAA made available to DOT for surface 

transportation relief was appropriated to FTA for the Public Transportation 

Emergency Relief Program.8 The DRAA provides this funding for eligible 

transit operating expenses, capital projects to repair or reconstruct 

damaged facilities, and projects to protect facilities from future damage 

(resiliency projects). According to FTA’s interim program regulations, 

resiliency projects are designed and built to address a transit system’s 

future vulnerabilities due to emergencies or major disasters that have 

occurred and are likely to reoccur in the geographic area in which the 

public transportation system is located, or projected changes in 

development patterns, demographics, or extreme weather or other 

climate patterns.9 For example, MTA is planning a resiliency project to 

increase New York City’s pumping capacity by converting existing rolling 

stock into pump trains. The project is intended to shorten the period of 

time it takes to pump water out of the subway system to prevent major 

damage from saltwater infiltration into the subway system. The DRAA 

also provided the DOT Secretary authority to transfer up to $5.4 billion for 

resiliency efforts to other DOT agencies, such as FHWA and FRA.10

In January 2013, FTA, FEMA, and affected transit agencies worked 

together after Hurricane Sandy to assess the damage in the New York 

and New Jersey region. The damage assessment estimated that the 

damage to public transit was about $5.7 billion. About 99 percent of the 

 8

FTA’s DRAA appropriation has “no-year authority.” No-year authority or no-year funding 

refers to appropriations that do not restrict the time by which funds must be obligated. The 

DRAA requires that funds for surface transportation grants be expended by grantees 

within 24 months following the obligation of funds for the grant, unless the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) waives the requirement and notifies the 

congressional Committees on Appropriations. On July 9, 2013, OMB waived this 

requirement for FTA, FRA, and FHWA.

9 49 C.F.R. § 602.5.

10 These projects must be authorized under titles 23 or 49 of the United States Code, 

which primarily pertain to highways and bridges, and rail and transit, respectively.
Page 9 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

estimated damage was sustained by four transit agencies, as shown in 

table 1.

Table 1: Estimated Damage to New York and New Jersey Transit Agencies, As 

Assessed by FTA, FEMA, and Transit Agencies (January 31, 2013)

(Dollars in millions)

Agencies Restoration/Recovery

New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) 3,904 

Port Authority of New York/New Jersey 1,286 

New Jersey Transit 459 

New York City DOT 36 

Other New York/New Jersey Agencies 4 

TOTAL $5,689

Source: FTA.

FTA officials said that the damage assessment only covered damage in 

New York and New Jersey because this was the area with the most 

extensive damage. Rather than identify total damage in other areas, FTA 

established a process for potential recipients to identify their damage and 

to apply for funds. FTA made initial grants to recipients outside of New 

York and New Jersey, but those grants account for less than 1 percent of 

all allocations made as of April 30, 2014. For example, FTA awarded a 

$5,352 grant to the Milford Transit District (MTD) in Connecticut for 

evacuation services performed during Hurricane Sandy, transportation 

after the storm, and debris cleanup. Beyond that, FTA has not estimated 

an amount of repair and recovery outside of New York and New Jersey 

but has set aside funds for future allocations (approximately $28 million) 

as needed if there are eligible response and recovery expenses from 

agencies that may not have received pro-rated allocations.
Page 10 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

As figure 3 shows, the approximately $13 billion that DRAA appropriated 

to DOT for surface transportation relief was divided among several DOT 

agencies including FTA, FHWA, and FRA—but the vast majority of it was 

appropriated to FTA.

Figure 3: DRAA Appropriations for Surface Transportation (As Enacted on January 

29, 2013)

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

FTA Has Allocated 

over Half of DOT’s 

DRAA Funds While 

Setting Up the Public 

Transportation 

Emergency Relief 

Program

Overall DOT Progress
Page 11 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

Two events have affected the amount of funds available to the DOT 

agencies. First, all DRAA funds were reduced by 5 percent—from 

approximately $13 billion to almost $12.4 billion—on March 1, 2013, as a 

result of sequestration.11

 11The absence of legislation to reduce the federal budget deficit by at least $1.2 trillion by 

fiscal year 2021 triggered the sequestration process in section 251A of the Balanced 

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 as amended. On March 1, 2013, the 

President ordered a sequestration of $85.3 billion in discretionary appropriations and 

direct spending for fiscal year 2013. OMB calculated that this would amount to a 5 percent 

reduction in nonexempt nondefense discretionary funding for the fiscal year.

Second, the DOT Secretary exercised his 

transfer authority under DRAA and approved a transfer in May 2013 of 

$185 million from FTA to FRA. This transfer was used to award a grant 

for Amtrak to install a concrete casing that preserves the right of way in 

the New York City Hudson Yards for the potential alignment of a future 

trans-Hudson tunnel. This concrete casing would allow access for a future 

project to install an additional railway tunnel under the Hudson River and 

increase train capacity for commuter, regional, and long distance intercity 

services going in and out of New York City (see fig. 4). The Gateway 

Tunnel project has been planned since 2010, and with this funding, 

Amtrak is able to preserve a possible right-of-way for the project. DOT 

officials told us that there are no plans at this time to make any other 

transfers using this authority.
Page 12 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

Figure 4: Depiction of the Amtrak Gateway Tunnel Project between New York and 

New Jersey

DOT surface transportation agencies have allocated about $6.3 billion (51 

percent), obligated about $2.2 billion (17 percent), and disbursed about 

$721 million (6 percent) of the roughly $12.4 billion available DRAA funds 

for transportation relief as of April 30, 2014.12 The available funds for 

each agency shown in table 2 reflect the impact of sequestration, and the 

DOT Secretary’s transfer from FTA to FRA.

 12For purposes of this report, “allocated” reflects the amount of available funds that have 

been assigned by DOT to a grantee from which grants may be awarded. “Obligated”

reflects the amount of funds legally committed by DOT to a grantee for awarded grants. 

“Disbursed” reflects the amount of payments that have been made to a grantee. 
Page 13 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

Table 2: DOT DRAA Funding Status ($ millions) as of April 30, 2014

DOT Surface Transportation 

Administrations

Available 

funds Allocated Obligated Disbursed

Federal Highway Administration 1,921 616 473 120

Federal Railroad Administration 297 ——a 215 102

Federal Transit Administration 10,170 5,679 1,463 499

TOTAL $12,388 $6,295 $2,151 $721

Source: DOT.

a

FRA funds are not allocated to grantees as they are for FHWA and FTA programs; FRA grants are 

awarded from available funds.

FTA is in the process of allocating and distributing DRAA funds while 

facing unique challenges setting up its Public Transportation Emergency 

Relief Program. The program was new when Hurricane Sandy struck, and 

FTA received its first funds for the program through the DRAA just 3 

months after the storm. As a result, as of April 2014, FTA was finalizing 

its program rules at the same time it was distributing billions of dollars of 

DRAA funds to affected transit agencies. Furthermore, the amount of 

funds that FTA is distributing through the emergency relief program (over 

$10 billion) is almost as much as FTA’s total budgetary resources were in 

fiscal year 2012 (approximately $12.1 billion).

FTA’s over $10 billion in DRAA funding is more than enough to address 

the costs of repairing transit facilities damaged by Hurricane Sandy in 

New York and New Jersey (see table 1). The January 2013 damage 

assessment estimated Hurricane Sandy damage in New York and New 

Jersey to public transit to be about $5.7 billion, but also identified about 

$10 billion in potential resiliency projects to guard against future disasters. 

As of April 30, 2014, FTA has allocated almost $5.7 billion of its DRAA 

funding to transit agencies affected by Hurricane Sandy and obligated a 

total of about $1.5 billion for 15 grants for emergency response, recovery, 

FTA Progress
Page 14 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

repair and reconstruction activities.13

As of April 30, 2014, FTA has only disbursed $499 million of its DRAA 

funds, but this does not indicate a lack of progress for several reasons. 

FTA’s progress is in line with expenditure estimates. In December 2012, 

CBO estimated that only 3 percent of FTA’s DRAA funds would be 

expended in the first year and forecasted that it would take over a decade 

for FTA to disburse all the funds based on historical patterns.

When we completed our review, 

transit agency officials we spoke with were generally positive about the 

FTA Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program and told us that, in 

their experience, FTA has not caused them any delays in receiving 

funding. Of the amount allocated, FTA made $1.3 billion available for 

what it called “locally prioritized” resiliency funding. This funding is 

primarily intended for resiliency improvements completed in tandem with 

recovery and rebuilding projects that will improve cost effectiveness and 

can be implemented quickly.

14

 13In March 2013, FTA allocated $2 billion (less almost $21 million to fund expenses for 

FTA administration and oversight by the DOT OIG) to affected recipients for eligible 

emergency response and recovery costs including (1) $576.6 million to reimburse affected 

transit agencies for emergency response and recovery costs incurred or budgeted to date 

and (2) $1.4 billion primarily to the four agencies most severely impacted (see table 1) for 

repair and reconstruction projects. These reimbursements are proportional to each 

agency’s estimated overall recovery costs. The $1.4 billion includes the FTA set-aside of 

approximately $28 million for other affected agencies that may have additional response 

and recovery expenses not reimbursed to date. In May 2013, FTA allocated an additional 

$3.7 billion to the four agencies most severely affected, based on a percentage of the 

anticipated full cost of recovery and rebuilding.

As of 

January 29, 2014—one year after DRAA was enacted—FTA had 

disbursed almost 3 percent of its DRAA funds, approaching CBO 

estimates. In addition, transit projects are long-term investments that 

typically take years to complete. For example, the MTA Long Island Rail 

Road’s West Side Storage Yard—which undertakes inspections, repairs, 

maintenance, and cleaning for the railroad’s fleet—suffered severe 

damage due to the tidal surge and resulting intrusion of salt water during 

Hurricane Sandy. The project to repair it will replace numerous assets in 

the yard, including switch machines, signal components, third-rail 

components, switch heaters, and fire alarm systems. According to 

officials, MTA plans to complete this work in phases and estimates a 

February 2018 completion. Finally, FTA plans to use about 42 percent of 

14Congressional Budget Office, Estimate of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, 

as Posted on the website of the Senate Committee on Appropriations on December 12,

2012 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2012).
Page 15 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

its DRAA appropriation for resiliency projects, most of which will be 

carried out through a competitive grant selection process, and FTA was 

evaluating applications when we completed our review.

Specifically, in December 2013, FTA issued a Notice of Funding 

Availability for approximately $3 billion in funding to be awarded for 

resiliency projects on a competitive basis.15 This funding differs from the 

$1.3 billion that has been obligated for locally prioritized resiliency 

funding. Any transportation agency16 within the declared Hurricane Sandy 

disaster area can apply for these funds,17 and they can be used to protect 

either a facility or system that has been repaired or replaced after 

Hurricane Sandy, or that is at risk of being damaged or destroyed by a 

future emergency or natural disaster.18 Among the other criteria, FTA will 

evaluate and award competitive resiliency funding based on the costeffectiveness of the project, implementation strategy, extent to which 

improvements will protect vulnerable existing infrastructure, availability of 

local financial commitments, and the technical capacity of grantees. 

According to FTA’s notice, in developing FTA guidelines for resiliency 

projects, it considered recommendations made by the Hurricane Sandy 

Rebuilding Task Force.19

 1578 Fed. Reg. 78486 (Dec.26, 2013).

The Task Force specifically recommended that 

16These funds are available for states, local governmental authorities, tribal governments, 

and other FTA recipients within the declared Hurricane Sandy disaster area. Entities that 

provide public transportation service and are not current recipients of FTA funding are only 

eligible to receive emergency relief funding as a subrecipient of an FTA recipient.

17This is defined as areas for which the President declared a major disaster under the 

Stafford Act in response to Hurricane Sandy.

18The Notice of Funds Availability defines resiliency projects as those projects designed 

and built to address current and future vulnerabilities to a public transportation facility or 

system due to future occurrence or recurrence of emergencies or major disasters that are 

likely to occur in the geographic area in which the public transportation is located; or 

projected changes in development patterns, demographics, or climate change and 

extreme weather patterns. 

19In December 2012, the President signed an executive order creating the Hurricane 

Sandy Rebuilding Task Force to ensure that the federal government continues to provide 

appropriate resources to support affected State, local, and tribal communities to improve 

the region’s resilience, health, and prosperity by building for the future. 77 Fed. Reg. 

74341 (Dec. 14, 2012). The Task Force is chaired by the Secretary of Housing and Urban 

Development and is comprised of representatives from other federal agencies. 
Page 16 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

infrastructure rebuilt with DRAA funds be designed to increase the 

resilience of the region.20

The DRAA appropriation to FTA provided funding for the DOT Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) to conduct oversight of FTA’s DRAA funds. In 

the initial report, the OIG stated that FTA’s initial response to Hurricane 

Sandy was noteworthy, but that FTA has yet to fully address challenges 

in its oversight plans and procedures.21 The OIG made several 

recommendations to FTA, including specifying the required time frames 

for completing risk assessments for all grantees and finalizing program 

guidance that incorporates lessons learned from emergencies and best 

practices from emergency relief guidance. According to the OIG’s report, 

FTA has provided appropriate planned actions and timeframes for 

completion for most of the OIG recommendations.

Compared to FEMA’s Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Grant 

Programs and FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program, FTA’s new Public 

Transportation Emergency Relief Program has more flexibility and fewer 

restrictions in funding emergency relief projects. For example, FEMA’s 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program places limits on the amount of 

emergency relief funding that can be allocated toward resiliency projects, 

whereas FTA’s program does not. However, unlike FEMA’s and FHWA’s 

programs, FTA’s program has not received funding on an ongoing basis, 

which could limit some transit providers’ ability to respond immediately 

after a disaster.

FTA’s Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program provides funding 

for similar types of activities as FEMA’s and FHWA’s emergency relief 

programs, such as emergency protective measures, permanent repairs, 

and resiliency projects, but the legislation authorizing FTA’s program 

placed no limits on the amount that can be awarded for resiliency 

projects. Based on this flexibility, FTA is awarding about 42 percent of the 

 20Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy: Stronger 

Communities, A Resilient Region (Washington, D. C.: August 2013).

21Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, MH-2014-008, Federal 

Transit Administration: Initial Assessment of FTA’s Oversight of the Emergency Relief 

Program and Hurricane Sandy Relief Funds (Washington, D. C.: Dec. 3, 2013).

FTA’s Relief Program 

Is More Flexible Than 

FEMA’s and FHWA’s 

but Has Not Received 

Ongoing Funding

FTA’s Program Has More 

Flexibility and Fewer 

Restrictions
Page 17 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

funding it received for Hurricane Sandy, $4.3 billion, for resiliency 

projects.

In contrast, FEMA has limits on the percentage of emergency funding that 

may be used for resiliency projects. FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant 

Program provides funding for resiliency projects (referred to as hazard 

mitigation projects) but the amount of funding available for this program 

for a particular disaster declaration is limited. For example, under this 

program a state may be eligible to receive up to 15 percent of the 

estimated total of federal assistance for hazard mitigation grant 

assistance. States that meet higher mitigation planning criteria may 

qualify for up to 20 percent of assistance.22

Besides having greater flexibility in funding resiliency projects, FTA’s 

Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program has fewer restrictions 

and greater flexibility to fund emergency relief projects compared to 

FHWA’s and FEMA’s programs, as discussed below:

Of the $119.7 billion that 

FEMA has obligated for disaster assistance over a 10-year period—from 

2004 through 2013—FEMA has obligated $4.9 billion (about 4 percent) 

for its Hazard Mitigation Grant Program activities to prevent or ease the 

impact of natural disasters.

FTA’s program funds have more flexibility in how they can be used for 

repairs. FTA’s Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program allows 

transit agencies to use response and recovery awards to improve 

facilities beyond pre-existing conditions by 1) replacing damaged assets 

with new assets that incorporate current design standards, 2) replacing 

obsolete equipment, or 3) bringing assets to a state of good repair as part 

of its recovery effort. By comparison, FEMA’s Public Assistance Program 

will generally provide funding for permanent repairs to restore a facility 

based on the adopted codes and standards to its pre-disaster design, 

 22The amount of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding available to an applicant is 

based upon the estimated total of Federal assistance, subject to the sliding scale formula 

outlined in section 5170c(a) of title 42, that FEMA provides for disaster recovery under the 

Presidential major disaster declaration. The formula provides for up to 15 percent of the 

first $2 billion of estimated aggregate amounts of disaster assistance, up to 10 percent for 

amounts between $2 billion and $10 billion, and up to 7.5 percent for amounts between 

$10 billion and $35.333 billion. For States with enhanced plans—FEMA approved state 

plans identifying policies and actions that can be implemented over the long term to 

reduce risks and future losses—the eligible assistance is up to 20 percent for estimated 

aggregate amounts of disaster assistance not to exceed $35.333 billion.
Page 18 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

function, and capacity.23 FEMA’s Public Assistance Program may provide 

funding to replace the facility to current applicable codes and standards, if 

the grantee can demonstrate that the estimated repair cost exceeds 50 

percent of the estimated replacement cost. FEMA’s Public Assistance 

Program also provides some funding to be used for hazard mitigation 

measures. This funding, along with FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Program 

funding, can be used to improve facilities beyond pre-disaster conditions 

if applicants can demonstrate that the project is cost-effective. Like FTA’s 

program, FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program will also provide 

emergency relief funding to restore or replace a facility or bridge to 

current geometric and construction standards. However, FHWA limits this 

funding only to portions of the facility that are damaged and requires 

applicants to show that the improvement is cost-effective, prevents future 

recurring damage, or is technically feasible. In addition, FTA has more 

flexibility in how it can support emergency transit operations. For 

example, FTA’s emergency relief program provides funding for 

emergency operations such as evacuations; rescue operations; ferry 

service to replace inoperable rail service or to detour around damaged 

areas; returning evacuees to their home after Hurricane Sandy; and for 

the net project costs related to reestablishing, expanding, or relocating 

public transportation service before, during or after Hurricane Sandy. By 

comparison, under FEMA’s Public Assistance Program, financial 

assistance for transit and transportation operations are limited to those 

operations that are necessary to save lives and protect public health, 

such as evacuation or transportation of evacuees to emergency shelter.

According to FEMA officials, FEMA does not have the authority to 

reimburse state or local transit agencies for expenses associated with 

emergency transit operations. 

 23FEMA may provide discretionary hazard mitigation funding under Section 406 of the 

Stafford Act which refers to FEMA’s Public Assistance Program. Section 406 is applied to 

the parts of the facility that were actually damaged by the disaster and the mitigation 

measure provides protection from subsequent events. The mitigation work must be cost 

effective and be reasonably performed as part of the work or measure that will reduce the 

potential for damage to a facility from a disaster event. In addition, Community 

Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) funds—including Community Development 

Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG–DR) funds may be used for the payment of the 

non-federal share required in connection with a federal grant-in-aid program (e.g., the 

FEMA Public Assistance Program) that provides funding for a CDBG-eligible activity.
Page 19 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

FTA emergency relief funds have no restrictions on funding projects 

included in statewide transportation improvement programs. FTA 

emergency relief funds can be used to fund projects that are included in 

statewide transportation improvement programs. In comparison, under 

MAP-21, FHWA emergency relief funds may not be used to repair or 

reconstruct a bridge if the construction phase of a replacement structure 

is already included in the approved statewide transportation improvement 

program at the time of an eligible event. Similarly, according to FEMA’s 

Pubic Assistance Program guidance, funding may not be used to replace 

a facility if the facility is already scheduled to be replaced using federal 

funds, and work is scheduled to begin within 12 months of the time the 

disaster struck. According to FTA officials, funding for projects in

statewide transportation improvement programs are not limited because 

FTA does not believe such plans constitute a firm commitment of funding. 

However, projects for which funds were obligated in an FTA grant prior to 

the declared emergency or disaster are not eligible to receive FTA 

emergency relief funds.24

FTA’s cost-sharing arrangements and rules for non-federal sharing 

commitments are less restrictive. As shown in table 3, cost-sharing 

arrangements vary among FTA’s, FEMA’s, and FHWA’s emergency relief 

programs. Under FTA’s program, for example, the federal share for 

capital and operating costs is generally up to 80 percent, and the nonfederal share is generally not less than 20 percent of the project cost. 

However, the DOT Secretary is authorized to waive in whole or in part 

FTA’s non-federal share. Pursuant to the Stafford Act, the cost-sharing 

arrangements for FEMA’s Public Assistance Program can also be 

adjusted, but only by the President at a governor’s request.

 2449 C.F.R.§ 602.13(C)(5). 
Page 20 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

Table 3: Federal and Non-Federal Cost-Sharing Arrangements for FTA’s, FEMA’s, and FHWA’s Emergency Relief Programs

Source: GAO analysis of FTA, FEMA, and FHWA information.

a

The DOT Secretary is authorized to adjust cost shares for the program and to waive in whole or in 

part the non-federal share requirement.

b

Sections 403, 406, 407, and 502 of the Stafford Act provide that the Federal share of assistance 

shall be not less than 75 percent of the cost of the eligible work. FEMA regulations at section 206.47 

of title 44, C.F.R., allow FEMA to recommend an increased cost-share. For example, in response to 

Hurricane Sandy, for the state of New York, the President authorized federal funds for all categories 

of the Public Assistance Program at 90 percent of total eligible costs, except assistance previously 

designated at 100 percent Federal share. In addition, FEMA recommends raising the usual 75 

percent federal share for the Public Assistance Program to 90 percent when federal obligations, 

excluding FEMA administrative costs, meet a qualifying threshold.

c

Emergency repairs completed within 180 days after a disaster to restore essential travel, minimize 

the extent of damage, or protect the remaining facilities are eligible for a 100 percent federal share.

d

For example, for interstate highways, the federal share is 90 percent. For federal-aid facilities that 

meet the definition of a federal land access transportation facility, the federal share is 100 percent 

and for all other highways, the federal share is 80 percent. In addition, MAP-21 provided authority for 

the Secretary of Transportation to extend the 180-day period for 100 percent federal share of 

emergency repair work if there is a delay in the state’s ability to access the site.

In addition, FTA’s program permits recipients to waive local matching 

requirements by applying toll credits toward the non-federal match. 

Recipients of FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program funds are specifically 

prohibited from using toll credits to reduce or eliminate the non-federal 

share.25

 2523 U.S.C. § 120(i)(1)(A).

States and localities that receive federal formula funds for 

highway or transit projects may apply “toll credits” to reduce or eliminate 

Agency Program Federal share Non-federal share 

FTA Public Transportation Emergency 

Relief Program

Up to 80 percent of the project cost. Not less than 20 percent of the project 

cost. 

a

FEMA Public Assistance Program Not less than 75 percent of the eligible 

project cost.

Not more than 25 percent of the project 

cost. b

Hazard Mitigation Program Up to 75 percent of the eligible activity 

costs. 

Not less than 25 percent of eligible 

activity costs.

FHWA Emergency Relief Program Up to 100 percent for emergency 

repairs completed within 180 days 

after a disaster.

For permanent repair costs and 

emergency repair costs incurred after 

the first 180 days, the federal share is 

based on the type of federal-aid 

highway being repaired.

c

Varies depending on the type of federal 

aid highway. 

d
Page 21 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

the funding they are required to provide to match federal funds for 

projects. These toll credits are earned when the state, a toll authority, or a 

private entity funds a capital transportation investment with toll revenues 

earned from existing toll facilities. FEMA’s Public Assistance and Hazard 

Mitigation Programs also do not allow for applicants to apply toll credits 

toward the local match but have other ways of meeting the non-federal 

share amount, for example, through in-kind contributions.26

FTA’s program does not require a presidential declaration of disaster to 

release emergency relief funds. Under both FTA’s and FHWA’s 

programs, for a natural disaster or other event to be eligible for 

emergency relief funding, either the governor of a state has to declare an 

emergency and the Secretary of Transportation has to concur, or the 

President has to declare a major disaster under section 401 of the 

Stafford Act. However, a Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster or 

Emergency is required for funding to be available for FEMA’s Public 

Assistance Program. Likewise, FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Program 

requires a presidential declaration of a major disaster for funding to be 

available for that program.

FTA’s program has flexibility to provide funds directly to the grantee.

Under FEMA’s and FHWA’s programs, funding is distributed to the states. 

FEMA provides funding under its Public Assistance Program to eligible 

applicants through state and tribal government grantees. In our prior 

work, we found instances where funding from state grantees to transit 

agencies was delayed.

27

 26For some disasters, non-cash contributions referred to as “in-kind donations” may be 

credited toward the non-federal share of grant costs under FEMA’s Public Assistance and 

Hazard Mitigation programs. In order for an in-kind contribution to be eligible for the nonfederal share, several conditions must apply such as that the contribution be necessary to 

accomplish the project objectives. Examples of in-kind contributions include property, 

services, equipment, and donated materials.

FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program similarly 

provides funding to states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and 

territories. The program is administered through the state DOTs in close 

coordination with FHWA’s division offices in each state. In contrast, FTA 

funding can be provided directly to transit agencies. Officials from the 

grantee agencies we spoke to told us that working with FTA is easier than 

27GAO, Emergency Transit Assistance: Federal Funding for Recent Disasters, and 

Options for the Future, GAO-08-243, (Washington D.C.: Feb. 15, 2008) and GAO, 

Disaster Recovery: FEMA’s Public Assistance Grant Program Experienced Challengers 

with Gulf Coast Rebuilding, GAO-09-129 (Washington, D. C.: Dec. 18, 2008).
Page 22 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

working with FEMA, in part because of their ongoing grantee relationship 

with FTA and because FTA’s personnel are transit specialists and its 

processes are better suited for complicated transit projects.

Even though FTA has more flexibility, particularly in the amount of funding 

it can allocate to resiliency projects, several recent changes to FHWA and 

FEMA program requirements have further expanded the scope of 

activities eligible for funding under these programs.

• MAP-21 expanded FHWA’s scope of activities to allow its emergency 

relief funds to be used to expand the capacity of a structure—such as 

bridges, highways, or roads—being repaired or replaced to 

accommodate the volume of traffic that the structure will carry over its 

design life.28

• The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013

Prior to MAP-21, FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program 

could only be used to expand the capacity of bridges to accommodate 

future traffic.

29

Use of emergency relief funds for projects that go beyond recovery efforts 

is not new. In our 2007 report on FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program, we 

found that FHWA’s use of Emergency Relief Program funds was not 

always limited to rebuilding facilities back to original conditions—the 

original intent of the program—and were used for projects that had grown 

in size and scope in response to public and community concerns.

revised the Stafford 

Act, establishing a new set of alternative procedures for FEMA’s 

Public Assistance Program, allowing applicants to receive funding 

based on fixed estimates, rather than being reimbursed for actual 

costs. Under these new procedures, applicants can use grant funding 

that exceeds actual costs toward mitigation activities.

30

 28The total cost of a project funded through FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program may not 

exceed the cost of repairing or constructing a facility that meets the current geometric and 

construction standards required for the types and volume of traffic that the facility will carry 

over its design life. Pub. L. No. 112-141, § 1107, codified at 23 U.S.C. § 125(d)(2).

For 

example, emergency relief funds were used to fund the reconstruction of 

the U.S. Highway 90 Biloxi Bay Bridge in Mississippi, a four-lane 

29Pub. L. No. 113-2, div. B, 127 Stat. 4, 39-50.

30GAO, Highway Emergency Relief: Reexamination Needed to Address Fiscal Imbalance 

and Long-term Sustainability, GAO-07-245 (Washington D.C.: Feb. 23, 2007).

Recent Changes Have 

Expanded the Scope of 

Activities FHWA and 

FEMA May Fund
Page 23 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

drawbridge between the cities of Biloxi and Ocean Springs, Mississippi. 

According to the Mississippi DOT officials, DOT initially proposed 

replacing the drawbridge with one that would provide an 85-foot 

clearance above Biloxi Bay. During a public comment period on the 

proposed bridge design, a local shipbuilder expressed concern that the 

height was not sufficient to allow for future ships to pass under the bridge. 

Mississippi DOT revised its proposed bridge design to provide a 95-foot 

clearance, which increased the cost of the bridge from an estimated $275 

million to $339 million. We have also found that Congress has, on 

occasion, expanded FHWA’s and FEMA’s emergency relief eligibility 

criteria, an expansion that has resulted in projects receiving funding 

beyond what FHWA’s and FEMA’s emergency relief programs would 

otherwise have funded.31

While we have previously raised concerns about the expanding scope of 

activities eligible for emergency relief funding, we have also noted that 

building resiliency into infrastructure planning is important.

For example, in 2003, following the September 

11, 2001, terrorist attack, Congress appropriated supplemental funding 

expanding FEMA’s authority to allow it to fund recovery efforts and rebuild 

infrastructure beyond pre-disaster conditions to substantially improve 

commuter mobility.

32 Enhancing 

the resilience of physical infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, 

vulnerable to extreme weather conditions can help reduce future 

economic losses and result in more efficient infrastructure planning. 

Federally funded road and bridge projects are typically expensive longterm investments. We have previously concluded that as the nation 

makes these investments, it faces the choice of paying more now, or 

potentially paying a much larger premium later to repair, modify, or 

replace infrastructure ill suited for future conditions.33

 31GAO-08-243. 

32GAO, Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support Local 

Infrastructure Decision Makers, GAO-13-242 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2013).

33GAO-13-242.
Page 24 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

FEMA and FHWA have funds available to provide recovery assistance 

when a disaster or emergency occurs:

• Funding for FEMA’s Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation 

Programs is available from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) after the 

President declares a disaster under the Stafford Act.34 The DRF 

receives emergency-designated funding through both the regular 

appropriations process and through supplemental appropriations. The 

amount requested each year for the DRF in the President’s Budget 

Request is based on the use of the fund (amount obligated from the 

fund) in prior years.35

• Budget authority for FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program is provided 

through contract authority, which authorizes FHWA to make 

commitments in advance of an appropriation.

Once funds are appropriated to the DRF, they 

are available until expended, which means they carry forward from 

one year to another.

36 FHWA is authorized to 

obligate up to $100 million each fiscal year for the program. Any 

unobligated balance remains available until expended.37

 34FEMA has several Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant Programs that provide funding 

for pre- and post-disaster mitigation. Some of FEMA’s other hazard mitigation programs 

are not funded by the DRF. These programs include the Pre-disaster Mitigation Program

and Flood Mitigation Assistance. 

In recent 

years, annual demands on FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program have 

exceeded the $100 million annual authorization. For example, on 

average, the program’s needed allocations for ordinary events—

disaster events requiring under $100 million in federal funding—are 

35For example, the President’s Budget Request for the DRF for fiscal year 2009 was 

based on the 5-year average obligational level for non-catastrophic disaster activity (less 

estimates of funds carried forward and the amount of funds deobligated in prior years that 

can be used for new obligations for authorized purposes).

36Contract authority is the statutory authority to incur obligations in advance of an 

appropriation. Contract authority is unfunded, and a subsequent appropriation is needed 

to liquidate the obligation. FHWA obligates funds for a state project once FHWA approves 

a project. Subsequently, FHWA reimburses states out of the Highway Account of the 

Highway Trust Fund (“Highway Account”) or the General Fund, depending on the source 

of funding. Congress can and has provided FHWA with supplemental appropriations, such 

as the DRAA, which are not funded through the Highway Trust Fund. The FHWA 

Emergency Relief Program is a reimbursable program—meaning FHWA reimburses the 

state for the federal share of the cost of the completed work assuming all federal 

requirements are met. 

3723 U.S.C. § 125.

FTA’s Public 

Transportation Emergency 

Relief Program Does Not 

Currently Receive Funding 

on an Ongoing Basis
Page 25 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

2.7 times the annual authorization, or $271 million. As a result, from 

2005 to 2011, FHWA received about $7 billion in additional funding 

from general revenues through supplemental appropriations.

To date, Congress has not provided an annual appropriation for FTA’s 

Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program, and FTA must rely on 

Congress to appropriate funds for a specific event. FTA’s program has 

only received funds that Congress made available exclusively for 

Hurricane Sandy through the DRAA. Since it takes time for appropriations 

to be enacted, FTA is unable to release funding immediately after a 

disaster to transit providers which, in turn, could limit the ability of transit 

agencies that do not have resources to respond immediately after a 

disaster. However, annual budgeting for FTA’s emergency relief program 

through regular appropriations would involve trade-offs with other funding 

priorities in a challenging budget environment. Events requiring the use of 

FEMA and FHWA emergency funds generally occur every year; however, 

transit disasters requiring FTA emergency relief funding may occur with 

less frequency. Ultimately, deciding how to allocate funding among 

competing demands is a policy decision for the Congress.

We discussed transit-funding challenges in our 2008 report, which 

highlighted the impact of challenges on the timeliness and effectiveness 

of FEMA’s and FTA’s assistance to transit agencies following the 2005 

Gulf Coast hurricanes.38

 38

We found that neither FEMA nor FTA had 

mechanisms in place to provide transit funding immediately after the 

disasters. Transit officials from the New Orleans Regional Transit 

Authority (NORTA) told us that a lack of financial resources immediately 

after Hurricane Katrina delayed their disaster response efforts. Based on 

this work, we presented a range of possible options for Congress to 

consider for providing immediate financial assistance to transit agencies 

in response to a disaster, including that Congress create an emergency 

relief program in FTA for transit assistance modeled after FHWA’s 

program with a “quick release mechanism”—a mechanism used to 

approve and release emergency funds within 1-2 days to begin the 

GAO-08-243.
Page 26 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

immediate flow of funds.39 FHWA’s program provides for a quick release 

of funding for larger disasters, wherein extensive damage is readily 

evident and state and federal level agencies need funds to flow quickly to 

the state. However, as we previously stated, to date, FTA has not 

received funding. If FTA’s emergency relief program continues to receive 

only supplemental appropriations, FTA will not be able to quickly release 

funding for transit operations during and immediately after a disaster 

occurs.40

The expanding scope of emergency relief assistance and FTA’s funding 

issues illustrate the long-standing challenges of establishing long-term 

sustainable funding for disaster relief and recovery.

• In 2013, we concluded that the federal government does not fully 

budget for emergency response and recovery costs and runs the risk 

of facing a large fiscal exposure at any time.41 Over recent decades, 

the scope of emergency relief assistance has expanded, with disaster 

declarations increasing to a record of 98 in fiscal year 2011, 

compared with 65 in 2004, resulting in increased federal disaster 

costs. Over that period, FEMA obligated over $80 billion in federal 

assistance for disasters.42

 39We also presented other options for Congress to consider such as 1) making permanent 

the temporary authorities that FTA was given to respond to the 2005 Gulf Coast 

hurricanes and (2) incorporating transit assistance as an eligible activity within FHWA’s 

Emergency Relief Program. We also found that at the local and state level, mutual aid 

agreements between states and others can direct needed resources to transit agencies 

following a disaster. 

The federal government’s fiscal exposure 

will only increase with the financial risks posed by extreme weather 

events. For this and other reasons, limiting the federal government’s 

40FEMA’s Public Assistance Program does have an expedited payment process for debris 

removal and emergency protective measures. Under this process, FEMA will make 

payments for these activities within 60 days of completion of the estimated preliminary 

damage assessment and no later than 90 days after the pre-application was submitted. 

However, this funding is only available on a project-by-project basis, and FEMA is only 

able to release less than $1 million. Funding beyond $1 million would require OMB and 

congressional approval. 

41GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington. D.C.: February 2013). 

42GAO, Federal Disaster Assistance: Improved Criteria Needed to Assess a Jurisdiction’s 

Capability to Respond and Recover on its Own, GAO-12-838 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 

2012). 

Long-standing Challenges 

of Identifying Long-term 

Sustainable Funding for 

Emergency Relief Efforts 

Remain
Page 27 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

fiscal exposure by better managing climate change risks was added to 

GAO’s High-Risk List.

• In our 2007 review of the FHWA Emergency Relief Program, we cited 

concerns about the use of emergency relief funds on an expanding 

scope of activities, noting that this gradual expansion of eligibility 

criteria was exacerbating the problem of longer-term sustainability.43

• In another 2008 report, we reviewed supplemental emergency 

appropriations from fiscal years 1997–2006 and stated that to the 

extent possible, funds should be provided through the regular 

appropriations process to ensure that trade-offs are made among 

competing priorities, especially in an environment of increasingly 

constrained resources.

We found that monies authorized from the Highway Trust Fund were 

not sufficient to cover the costs of ordinary events states experienced 

and that since 1990, the program had relied on supplemental 

appropriations to make up for the funding shortfall. We recommended 

that to put the Emergency Relief Program on a sound financial 

footing, additional alternatives to address the fiscal imbalance needed 

to be considered and that Congress could consider tightening the 

eligibility criteria for Emergency Relief funding, either through 

amending the purpose of the Emergency Relief Program, or by 

directing FHWA to revise its program regulations. We also 

recommended that Congress consider the expected future demands 

of the program and reexamine the appropriate level and sources of 

funding to address disasters—including whether to increase the $100-

million annual authorized funding and whether the Highway Trust 

Fund, general revenues, or some combination would allow the 

program to accomplish its purpose in a fiscally sustainable matter.

44

Others have also commented on the process of funding emergency relief 

efforts in a fiscally sustainable manner. In its 2010 Report, the National 

Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform45

 43

recommended that 

GAO-07-245. In order to help put the FHWA Emergency Relief Program on a 

sustainable and more sound financial footing, we recommended among other things, that 

FHWA should, within its authority, tighten eligibility standards, recapture unused funds, 

and seek rescission of unneeded funds.

44GAO, Supplemental Appropriations: Opportunities Exist to Increase Transparency and 

Provide Additional Controls, GAO-08-314, (Washington D.C.: Jan. 31, 2008).

45Erskine Bowles, Alan Simpson et al., The Moment of Truth, Report of the National 

Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (December 2010).
Page 28 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

Congress explicitly set aside funds for disaster relief to better prepare for 

disasters. In a 2003 report, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) 

cited various challenges and benefits to having an emergency relief 

fund.46 For example, according to CRS, maintaining emergency funds at 

a level that more accurately reflects emergency needs instead of relying 

on supplemental funding would foster fiscal responsibility and help ensure 

disaster response funding is budgeted with existing funds. However, CRS 

noted that, because disasters cannot always be anticipated, emergency 

supplemental appropriations can facilitate funding recovery efforts for 

disasters, the timing and severity of which are unpredictable.

On March 4, 2013, FTA and FEMA signed a memorandum of agreement, 

as required by MAP-21, to coordinate their roles and responsibilities when 

providing assistance for public transportation in areas in which the 

President has declared a major disaster or emergency. We have found 

that by working together to define roles and responsibilities in 

collaborative efforts, federal agencies can clarify understanding about 

who will do what, organize their joint and individual efforts, and facilitate 

decision making.47

 46CRS, Disaster Relief Funding and Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief, CRS 

Report, R40708 (Washington D.C.: Aug. 5, 2013). 

However, in this memorandum of agreement, FTA and 

47GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: October 2005). 

FTA and FEMA

Have Limited

Ability to Assign 

Responsibilities in 

Their Memorandum 

of Agreement but 

Could Do More to 

Ensure Effective 

Collaboration

FTA’s and FEMA’s Ability 

to Clarify Specific 

Responsibilities for Future 

Disasters Is Limited
Page 29 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

FEMA have limited ability to clarify who will do what related to their 

respective responsibilities when providing emergency transportation relief 

in future disasters. This is because, as we stated previously, FTA lacks 

the funding to assume costs for future disasters unless and until 

Congress provides an appropriation, either on an ongoing basis or for a 

specific disaster. Lacking information on the resources it will have, FTA is 

limited in pre-determining what assistance it could provide during future 

disasters. Conversely, because FHWA receives funding on an ongoing 

basis, FHWA and FEMA can delineate specific roles and responsibilities 

during emergencies that affect highways. FHWA provides funds to repair 

and replace disaster-damaged roads that are on the federal-aid highway 

system, and FEMA provides funds for roads that are not part of the 

system. However, FTA and FEMA are limited to more general 

descriptions of how they will cooperate—such as the principles and 

general areas of cooperation described in the memorandum of 

agreement. FEMA officials told us that after FTA finalizes all of its 

program rules, they may be able to make some small clarifications to their 

roles and responsibilities, but because of the uncertainty of FTA funding, 

they will not be able to draw clear distinctions in responsibilities, as they 

have been able to do with FHWA.

As a result, FTA and FEMA will have to determine their specific roles and 

responsibilities on a per-incident basis. Funds provided for the FTA Public 

Transportation Emergency Relief Program do not affect the ability of any 

other agency to provide any other funds authorized by law. Thus, FEMA 

and FTA can fund many of the same activities.48 The memorandum of 

agreement states that if FTA receives funds, it will be the “primary” payor 

of expenses incurred by public transportation agencies as a result of 

emergency or major disaster. For Hurricane Sandy, FTA and FEMA 

agreed that FTA would assume this responsibility for affected transit 

agencies, because it received an appropriation from the DRAA large 

enough to cover the damage without FEMA funding. However, outside of 

Hurricane Sandy, FTA has been unable to assist transit agencies at all. 

For example, a transit agency in Massachusetts that had received 

assistance after Hurricane Sandy from FTA also sustained damage 

related to Winter Storm Nemo but went to FEMA for assistance instead.49

 4849 U.S.C.§ 5324(c)(2).

49The President made major disaster declarations in the states of New Hampshire on 

March 19, 2013; Connecticut on March 21, 2013; Rhode Island on March 22, 2013; Maine 

on March 25, 2013; Massachusetts on April 19, 2013; and New York on April 23, 2013.
Page 30 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

Although FTA had the authority to respond, and the transit agency official 

said that he preferred to go to FTA, FTA had no funding for any event 

outside of Hurricane Sandy and could not assist. In the future, agencies 

may continue to receive transit funding from FTA in one disaster and from 

FEMA in another. However, if a significant transit disaster occurs in the 

future and FTA funds are not enough to address the damage, transit 

agencies could go to FTA to fund some of their repairs and to FEMA to 

fund others, which could increase confusion and the chance that similar 

activities could be funded by both agencies inadvertently.

Furthermore, if FTA ultimately does receive supplemental funding after a 

specific emergency or disaster, transit agencies that receive assistance 

may have to change their application for emergency funds mid-stream 

from FEMA to FTA. In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, FTA 

and FEMA officials were uncertain as to which agency would ultimately 

fund recovery efforts for transit. Transit agency officials affected by the 

storm said that at first, they were using FEMA worksheets to document 

their expenses. However, 3 months after the storm—after FTA received 

an appropriation under DRAA and became the primary payor of 

expenses—transit agencies had to re-do their paperwork. For example, 

one transit agency official told us that he put together a lot of 

documentation after Hurricane Sandy to receive funds from FEMA, 

documentation that was not necessary when the process changed to 

FTA. Another transit agency official told us that the requirements for 

FEMA’s and FTA’s programs are different and as a result, the agency had 

to make a change from ensuring FEMA’s requirements were met in the 

application process to ensuring that FTA’s requirements were met. Since 

FEMA’s and FTA’s programs have different statutory requirements, the 

agencies are limited in creating standardized procedures that would meet 

the requirements of both programs. Thus, transit agencies may be 

uncertain which program requirements they must meet until recovery 

efforts are well under way, as was the case with Hurricane Sandy.

Because FTA and FEMA face challenges assuming definitive and stable 

roles and responsibilities, it is especially important that they collaborate 

effectively. Among the practices that we have identified that can enhance 

and sustain the collaborative efforts of federal agencies is creating a 

means to monitor, evaluate, and report the results of collaborative efforts 

to better identify areas for improvement. Reporting on these activities can 

FTA and FEMA Could

Take Additional Steps to

Help Ensure Effective 

Collaboration
Page 31 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

help key decision makers within the agencies, as well as clients and 

stakeholders, to obtain feedback for improving both policy and operation 

effectiveness.50 We have identified implementation approaches among 

agencies that successfully monitored progress including developing 

performance measures and tying them to shared outcomes, identifying 

and sharing relevant agency performance data, developing methods to 

report on the group’s progress that are open and transparent, and 

incorporating interagency group activities into individual performance 

expectations.51

FTA and FEMA have not implemented a method to monitor or evaluate 

their collaborative efforts or report on how well they are working. Instead, 

FTA and FEMA officials have noted that they meet regularly and notify 

each other of all grant awards to prevent duplication of DRAA funding. 

However, we have reported in the past that routine interagency meetings 

can be dutifully attended without communicating any substantive 

information. Thus, simply meeting does not guarantee that collaboration 

is effective.52

 50

Further, while FTA and FEMA officials state that they are 

collaborating now on the distribution of DRAA funds, it is unclear how the 

agencies might work together during future disasters. For example, the 

memorandum of agreement that MAP-21 required stated that “FTA and 

FEMA will work together to develop a communications protocol and 

implement an effective communications program to ensure all interested 

parties are aware of their respective responsibilities for emergency 

preparedness, response, and recovery related to public transportation 

matters.” FTA and FEMA officials stated that their informal meetings to 

discuss DRAA funding serve as the communications protocol indentified 

in the memorandum of agreement. FTA officials told us that they do not 

have a communications protocol for anything beyond DRAA funding, 

because they do not have funding outside of DRAA. However, the 

requirement to develop the memorandum of agreement to improve 

coordination was intended to frame the relationship of FTA and FEMA 

going forward to address transportation emergency activities, not just one 

disaster. Further, without a means to monitor, evaluate, and report the 

results of collaborative efforts—including FTA’s and FEMA’s 

GAO-06-15.

51GAO, Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance 

Collaboration in Interagency Groups , GAO-14-220 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2014).

52GAO-06-15.
Page 32 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

communication program and protocols— it is unclear how FTA and FEMA 

officials would know if their collaborative methods were effective. In a 

future disaster, informal meetings between FTA and FEMA may not be 

sufficient to ensure that effective collaboration is taking place, particularly 

if both agencies are funding public transportation activities.

The scope of activities eligible for transportation emergency relief has 

expanded over time to include funding resiliency efforts that repair and 

restore facilities beyond pre-disaster conditions. FTA’s new Public 

Transportation Emergency Relief Program was designed to be more 

flexible when funding resiliency compared to existing disaster-relief 

programs within FHWA and FEMA, although the scope of activities 

eligible for funding under those programs have expanded as well. 

Furthermore, the DRAA provided, through FTA, a significant investment 

in resiliency and protection against future disasters and funding well 

beyond (almost twice as much as) the repair and recovery needs of New 

York and New Jersey, as well as significant flexibility on how to provide 

those funds to areas affected by Hurricane Sandy. Going forward, as FTA 

begins awarding funding for resiliency projects through DRAA, the scope 

of these projects may exceed costs of projects that have previously been 

funded through historically established emergency relief programs in 

FHWA and FEMA. Resiliency funding can represent an efficient use of 

funds that avoids the need for repair and recovery from future disasters. 

We have reported on the need to build resiliency into infrastructure 

decision making and the challenges of doing so. However, expanding the 

scope of activities eligible for transportation emergency relief can pose 

challenges to providing long-term sustainable funding for disasters. As we 

have previously reported, the amount of emergency relief funding 

available is limited in an austere budget environment and may not be 

sustainable if federal disaster costs continue to increase. As the scope of 

eligible activities for emergency relief funding continues to expand, 

additional demands are placed on emergency relief funding further 

exacerbating the problem of longer-term sustainability. Determining the 

appropriate limits on emergency relief eligibility criteria will involve tradeoffs and require weighing competing demands in the current budget 

environment. We have made recommendations in the past on this matter 

and are therefore not making new recommendations in this report.

Looking beyond Hurricane Sandy relief, FTA’s Public Transportation 

Emergency Relief Program is inherently limited by its inability to fund any 

activities—recovery or resiliency—without specific congressional action. 

This limitation has two notable effects. First, FTA cannot immediately 

Conclusions
Page 33 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

respond to disasters involving transit when they occur, such as providing 

a “quick release” of funds to transit agencies, as was the case with 

Hurricane Katrina. Second, FTA and FEMA are limited in their ability to 

clearly delineate the responsibilities and costs each agency will assume

during future disasters. As a result, FTA’s and FEMA’s programs will 

continue to have the authority and potential to fund the same transit 

activities, fostering confusion and difficulties for applicants seeking federal 

assistance in the days after a disaster. This confusion could be 

exacerbated if a future transit disaster occurred and FTA funding was not 

sufficient to address recovery needs without FEMA funds and transit 

agencies had to go to both agencies for the same disaster. Over time, the 

decision to provide funding authority to any particular agency has proved 

difficult and the broader challenges of funding disasters involves tradeoffs and requires weighing competing demands. In the meantime, FTA 

and FEMA can take steps to ensure that within the scope of activities they 

can control, their collaborative efforts are working. Although the agencies 

have a memorandum of agreement, FTA and FEMA have not developed 

any means to monitor, evaluate or report on their collaboration. 

Furthermore, should FTA receive regular, ongoing funding sometime in 

the future, then it and FEMA could take action to more clearly delineate 

roles and responsibilities and identify the costs each agency should 

assume.

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of 

Homeland Security direct the Administrators of FTA and FEMA to 

establish specific guidelines to monitor, evaluate, and report the results of 

collaborative efforts—including their communications program and 

protocol— for Hurricane Sandy as well as future disasters.

We provided a draft of this report to DOT and DHS for its review and 

comment. DHS agreed with our recommendation and DOT took no 

position. DHS and DOT each provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees and the Secretaries of Transportation and Homeland 

Security. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s 

website at http://www.gao.gov.

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
Page 34 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

David Wise

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

This report examines 1) the progress the Department of Transportation 

(DOT) has made allocating, obligating, and disbursing the Disaster Relief 

Appropriations Act , 2013 (DRAA) surface transportation funds; 2) how 

the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) new emergency relief program 

compares to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) and 

Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) emergency relief programs; 

and 3) the extent to which FTA and FEMA have implemented their 

memorandum of agreement to coordinate their roles and responsibilities 

when providing assistance to transit agencies affected by Hurricane 

Sandy or future disasters.

To address all three objectives, we reviewed and analyzed relevant laws 

and regulations and our previous reports. We interviewed headquarters 

officials responsible for emergency relief programs and budgeting at 

FEMA, FTA, FHWA, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). We 

also interviewed FTA regional officials responsible for emergency transit 

relief in New York and New Jersey, spoke with New York state officials 

and obtained background on the effects of Hurricane Sandy, and 

observed residual damage to transit facilities in New York and New 

Jersey. We interviewed officials from seven of the 13 local transit 

agencies that received grants from FTA.1 We selected the transit 

agencies that received FTA’s four largest funding allocations (all located 

within New York and New Jersey), as well as three agencies that 

received smaller funding allocations outside of New York and New 

Jersey. While our observations of these agencies provide key insights 

and illustrate FTA’s emergency transit relief grant process, the results of 

our review should not be used to make generalizations about all FTA 

emergency transit relief grants. We also interviewed Amtrak—the sole 

grantee that received emergency relief grants from FRA (funds that had 

been transferred from FTA).2

To determine the progress DOT has made allocating, obligating, and 

disbursing DRAA surface transportation funds from March 2013 to April 

We did not interview FHWA grantees, as 

they did not receive any transferred FTA funds.

 1

New Jersey Transit Corporation, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York 

City Department of Transportation, New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation 

Authority, and Milford Connecticut Transit District.

2

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

2014, we obtained and analyzed the financial information from DOT’s 

surface transportation agencies (FTA, FHWA, and FRA) on Hurricane 

Sandy relief allocations, obligations, and disbursements. We also 

reviewed the FTA’s Hurricane Sandy damage assessment of public 

transit agencies and the 2012 Congressional Budget Office analysis of 

the DRAA as well as FTA’s announcements of Hurricane Sandy disaster 

relief availability of funds, interim rules, and allocations of funds published 

in the Federal Register. To access the reliability of the data we reviewed 

relevant documentation, interviewed knowledgeable officials, and 

reviewed internal controls. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for 

our purposes.

To determine how FTA’s new emergency relief program compares to 

FEMA’s and FHWA’s emergency relief programs, we interviewed 

headquarters officials responsible for emergency relief programs at FTA, 

FHWA, and FEMA.3 In addition, we reviewed and analyzed applicable 

authorizing legislation for emergency relief programs for FEMA,4 FTA,5

and FHWA.6 We also reviewed and analyzed emergency relief program 

regulations, procedures, guidance, and other agency documents on 

emergency relief at FEMA, FTA, and FHWA to determine similarities and 

differences between the programs’ eligibility rules and requirements (see 

table 4). Finally, we reviewed independent reports on budgeting for 

emergency relief,7 and our past reports on emergency relief efforts.8

 3

During the review the team held coordination meetings with the DOT OIG. We learned 

they are conducting an extensive multi-phase review of how the FTA’s Public 

Transportation Emergency Relief Program is being set up and FTA’s efforts to ensure that 

DRAA funds are distributed appropriately. Thus, the team made a decision to focus our 

review on how the program is structured compared to previously established emergency 

relief programs in FEMA and FHWA instead of conducting an in-depth evaluation of FTA’s 

Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program at this time.

4

42 U.S.C. §§ 5170, 5170c, 5172; 44 C.F.R. Part 206.

5

49 U.S.C. § 5324; 49 C.F.R. Part 602. 

6

23 U.S.C. §125 ; 23 C.F.R. Part 668. 

7

Congressional Research Service, Disaster Relief Funding and Supplemental 

Appropriations for Disaster Relief, August 5, 2013 and Erskine Bowles, Alan Simpson et 

al., The Moment of Truth, Report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and 

Reform (December 2010).

8

GAO-07-245 and GAO-08-243.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

Table 4: Agency Guidance Reviewed

Source Guidance reviewed

Department of Homeland Security, 

FEMA

FEMA 322 Public Assistance Guide, June 2007

FEMA 323 Applicant Handbook, March 2010

FEMA 321 Public Assistance Policy Digest, January 2008

FY 2013 508 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance Unified Guidance, (July 12, 2013)

Final Addendum to the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance, (July 12, 2013)

Department of Transportation, FTA

Notice of Availability of FTA Emergency Relief Funds in Response to Hurricane Sandy, 78 

Federal Register 8691 (Feb. 6, 2013).

Notice of Allocation of Public Transportation Emergency Relief Funds in Response to 

Hurricane Sandy, 78 Fed. Reg. 19357 (March 29, 2013).

Issuance of Interim Final Rule, FTA Emergency Relief Program, 78 Federal Register 

19136 (March 29, 2013).

Notice of Second Allocation of Public Transportation Emergency Relief Funds in 

Response to Hurricane Sandy: Response, Recovery and Resiliency, 78 Federal Register 

32296 (May 29, 2013). 

Transit Emergency Relief Program, Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013, Grant 

Making and Grant Management Toolkit, (Apr. 12, 2013).

Notice of Funding Availability for Resilience Projects in Response to Hurricane Sandy, 78 

Fed. Reg. 78486 (Dec. 26, 2013).

Department of Transportation, FHWA

Emergency Relief Manual (Federal-Aid Highways), (May 31, 2013).

A Guide to the Federal-Aid Highway Emergency Relief Program, (Nov. 5, 2012).

Source: GAO.

To determine the extent to which FTA and FEMA have implemented their 

memorandum of agreement to coordinate their roles and responsibilities 

when providing assistance to transit agencies affected by Hurricane 

Sandy or future disasters, we reviewed and analyzed the mandated 

memorandum of agreement between FTA and FEMA dated March 4, 

2013 and compared the agencies’ efforts to practices that we have found 

can enhance collaboration among federal agencies.9

 9

We evaluated the 

extent to which the memorandum of agreement defined roles and 

GAO-06-15.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

responsibilities, assigned costs, specified a system for monitoring and 

evaluating collaborative efforts, and established communication protocols. 

We developed a list of evaluation questions based upon the requirements 

of FTA’s Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program authorization 

in MAP-21 and funding requirements in DRAA. Three GAO team 

members independently analyzed the memorandum of agreement. The 

analyses were then consolidated and agreed to by the team members 

and reviewed by the GAO team’s Assistant Director. We also reviewed 

the DOT OIG report on FTA’s oversight of emergency relief funds for 

coordination between FTA and FEMA for transit relief grants.10

We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 to May 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 10Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General Audit Report, Initial 

Assessment of FTA’s Oversight of the Emergency Relief Program and Hurricane Sandy 

Relief Funds, Federal Transit Administration, Report Number: MH-2104-008, 

(Washington, DC, Dec. 3, 2013).
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Homeland Security

Page 39 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Homeland Security

Page 40 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 41 GAO-14-512 Emergency Transportation Collaboration

David Wise, (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Steve Cohen, Assistant Director; 

Peter DelToro; George Depaoli; Kathy Gilhooly; Michael Hanson; Carol 

Henn; Amy Higgins; David Hooper; Chris Keisling; Hannah Laufe, Maria 

Mercado; Amy Rosewarne; and Kelly Rubin made key contributions to 

this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(542218)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.